I am interested in collecting information to see which classes are the D&D community’s favorite and least favorite to play. This is the poll for everyone’s least favorite to play, here is the link for everyone’s favorite if you’d like to check that one out as well: Everyone’s FAVORITE class to play in D&D.
Please feel free to place your vote (only 1 vote per user), as well as talk about why you dislike playing that class(optional).
Thank you for voting and looking forward to see what the results come up with!
Ranger. I love the idea for RP, but playing a fighter with an archery fighting style and maybe nature, animal handling and survival skill proficiencies gets you most of the way there, but with far better attacks, perks, etc. as you level up.
Paladin. I don't like the RP flavour of them with their oaths, the way the source of their power is explained is partly confusing and feels weak RP wise especially factoring Oathbreakers - the description of these basically means if declare an oath and live by it for a while you gain super divine powers (which is stated to come from the "oath" not actually from a deity - so why is it divine?!) and yet if you ever break your oath enough you lose those powers and gain super necromantic powers instead? Why? It just put across very weirdly. I don't like playing characters with religion, but Clerics can easily be RP'd without reliance on a "deity" per se but can be a strong connection to a powerful concept like how Druids gain theirs from nature rather than a deity. But these are concepts/things that are powerful throughout the world. Paladin Oaths aren't really like that, without a "deity" aspect their oath is just to themselves, like somebody murdered your family and you want revenge you make an oath to get it, train some swordfighting and bam, super-powers.. for some reason? Just comes across as naff to me.
The burst-nova style is boring to me. Multiclassing gets you more resources for more bursts to the point of being insanely broken. A Sorcadin made right even by 14th level can solo an adult dragon. This is broken.
They're kinda a mary-sue class. They can do more damage than anything in the game, they're decent healers, have good spells for buffs and debuffs, can boost all saves for the entire party, get all weapon/armour proficiencies, get super-mounts, and that's just the Base stuff, in addition to lots of subclass extras. Their only downside is players might burn through spell slots too quickly if liberal with smites - but there are ways around that and frankly even without smites they're powerful when played right. And, of course, get a lot of magic stuff that can boost their abilities. They're not as good at range as they cannot smite, but, again, there are ways around that (see "super mounts" which includes high-speed flying ones - why fight at range when you can outfly the enemies and stab them in the head?).
Just seems too much, and I hate that. I like that my wizard is vulnerable when magic is not effective, I like that barbarians can usually struggle with ranged fights - and don't get the ability to summon flying mounts to make that weakness disappear, things like this ground the characters into relatability and the need to work together. Paladins don't have this.
Plus, as a DM, paladins are frustrating because CRs don't factor the paladin's ability to resist almost anything and can release super-mega-****tons of radiant damage. So you can't really follow the DMG on making the encounters balanced without negatively affecting the other party members. Sorcadins are banned in games I run.
Rollback Post to RevisionRollBack
Click ✨ HERE ✨ For My Youtube Videos featuring Guides, Tips & Tricks for using D&D Beyond. Need help with Homebrew? Check out ✨ thisFAQ/Guide thread ✨ by IamSposta.
I don't like barbarians. They can take a lot of damage and hit things, that's pretty much it. They're a good class, just a class I'd never play because I need more options than take the dodge action or hit something or occasionally grapple somebody. They're a great class mechanically, but they just don't get a lot of options. Which is why either play a spellcaster or a battle-master fighter. I also like inquisitive rouge for the RP potential.
Rollback Post to RevisionRollBack
call me Anna or Kerns, (she/her), usually a DM, lgbtq+ friendly
I haven't played every class so I can't make an informed decision based on that - but I can categorically say I will never play a Bard. They're just not a class I believe I would ever mesh with.
Never played this as a Player but I designed a 4 Elements Monk as an adversary. Despite having powerful companions, the Monk was used as a figurative mop by the Hero's.
It would have been Ranger had I not been playing a tweaked version of the UA Beast Master Ranger.
Personally every Class to me is great, but I'd have to say Barbarian's JUST clinch it as, from a purely role-play standpoint, they can be pretty one note. I HIT THINGS WHERE'S THE MEAD??? It requires effort on the Player to inject them with a bit of creativity. Especially where the Beserker path is considered.
Untouched PHB Ranger a very close second because mechanically.... well that's a well beaten horse :P
Have the Physical Books? Confused as to why you're not allowed to redeem them for free on D&D Beyond? Questions answered here at the Hardcover Books, D&D Beyond and You FAQ
Looking to add mouse-over triggered tooltips to such things like magic items, monsters or combat actions? Then dash over to the How to Add Tooltips thread.
Funny ... Sorcerers are my favorite class to play. I like dealing with the constraints of their spell lists and branching out in new directions ... possibly multi-classing a little bit.
My favorite PC currently is a V. Human 18 level Storm Sorcerer (17) / Tempest Cleric (1)
I also really enjoy playing fighters and paladins.
For some reason I find 5e rangers to be the most boring. Whereas I loved rangers in 2e.
Paladin. I don't like the RP flavour of them with their oaths, the way the source of their power is explained is partly confusing and feels weak RP wise especially factoring Oathbreakers - the description of these basically means if declare an oath and live by it for a while you gain super divine powers (which is stated to come from the "oath" not actually from a deity - so why is it divine?!) and yet if you ever break your oath enough you lose those powers and gain super necromantic powers instead? Why? It just put across very weirdly. I don't like playing characters with religion, but Clerics can easily be RP'd without reliance on a "deity" per se but can be a strong connection to a powerful concept like how Druids gain theirs from nature rather than a deity. But these are concepts/things that are powerful throughout the world. Paladin Oaths aren't really like that, without a "deity" aspect their oath is just to themselves, like somebody murdered your family and you want revenge you make an oath to get it, train some swordfighting and bam, super-powers.. for some reason? Just comes across as naff to me.
The burst-nova style is boring to me. Multiclassing gets you more resources for more bursts to the point of being insanely broken. A Sorcadin made right even by 14th level can solo an adult dragon. This is broken.
They're kinda a mary-sue class. They can do more damage than anything in the game, they're decent healers, have good spells for buffs and debuffs, can boost all saves for the entire party, get all weapon/armour proficiencies, get super-mounts, and that's just the Base stuff, in addition to lots of subclass extras. Their only downside is players might burn through spell slots too quickly if liberal with smites - but there are ways around that and frankly even without smites they're powerful when played right. And, of course, get a lot of magic stuff that can boost their abilities. They're not as good at range as they cannot smite, but, again, there are ways around that (see "super mounts" which includes high-speed flying ones - why fight at range when you can outfly the enemies and stab them in the head?).
Just seems too much, and I hate that. I like that my wizard is vulnerable when magic is not effective, I like that barbarians can usually struggle with ranged fights - and don't get the ability to summon flying mounts to make that weakness disappear, things like this ground the characters into relatability and the need to work together. Paladins don't have this.
Plus, as a DM, paladins are frustrating because CRs don't factor the paladin's ability to resist almost anything and can release super-mega-****tons of radiant damage. So you can't really follow the DMG on making the encounters balanced without negatively affecting the other party members. Sorcadins are banned in games I run.
I think having a Paladins power come from their Oath rather than a God, is more a 5e thing. Paladins in past editions made more sense .as the "champion" of such and such a God.
I like Paladins but also find the 5e version of them somewhat perplexing. Why not just play a Fighter or a Cleric if you want magic powers. Battlemaster Fighters and Forge or War domain Clerics make excellent front/midline characters.
I love paladins, sorcerers and warlocks.........or multi classes of the three
I personally hate fighters as I dont like the idea of just swinging a sword all day long
Poor fighters. Why does everyone play sword and board fighters in my games? They can be great archers, dual wielders, polearmers, maulers, and basically any type of fighter.
Rollback Post to RevisionRollBack
Please check out my homebrew, I would appreciate feedback:
I love paladins, sorcerers and warlocks.........or multi classes of the three
I personally hate fighters as I dont like the idea of just swinging a sword all day long
Poor fighters. Why does everyone play sword and board fighters in my games? They can be great archers, dual wielders, polearmers, maulers, and basically any type of fighter.
This.
The fighter is one of the most versatile classes in the game. You can make a fighter into just about anything you want them to be.
Rollback Post to RevisionRollBack
A caffeinated nerd who has played TTRPGs or a number of years and is very much a fantasy adventure geek.
I do not care at all for Druids. Part of that is me being allergic to everything that pollinates and having to deal with animals on a ranch. The outside deserves to die! It was also very narrow in its them. Protect the balance nature. You can do a lot of things within that, but mechanically I can get that with a lot of other classes. Those classes have more flavor and roleplaying opportunities that I like with them.
I do not care at all for Druids. Part of that is me being allergic to everything that pollinates and having to deal with animals on a ranch. The outside deserves to die! It was also very narrow in its them. Protect the balance nature. You can do a lot of things within that, but mechanically I can get that with a lot of other classes. Those classes have more flavor and roleplaying opportunities that I like with them.
I also have allergies to everything outside, but I don't take it out on Druids or Rangers. (Even though I voted for rangers here, but that's for other reasons)
Also, if you don't like living things as a druid, just be a Spores druid.
Rollback Post to RevisionRollBack
Please check out my homebrew, I would appreciate feedback:
I love paladins, sorcerers and warlocks.........or multi classes of the three
I personally hate fighters as I dont like the idea of just swinging a sword all day long
Poor fighters. Why does everyone play sword and board fighters in my games? They can be great archers, dual wielders, polearmers, maulers, and basically any type of fighter.
I never play sword and board builds, but for some reason in dnd I have to play a class with magic or it feels so boring:/
I do really like the samurai subclass tho
Rollback Post to RevisionRollBack
“I will take responsibility for what I have done. [...] If must fall, I will rise each time a better man.” ― Brandon Sanderson, Oathbringer.
I love paladins, sorcerers and warlocks.........or multi classes of the three
I personally hate fighters as I dont like the idea of just swinging a sword all day long
Poor fighters. Why does everyone play sword and board fighters in my games? They can be great archers, dual wielders, polearmers, maulers, and basically any type of fighter.
I never play sword and board builds, but for some reason in dnd I have to play a class with magic or it feels so boring:/
I do really like the samurai subclass tho
Eldritch Knight Fighters: "Am I a joke to you?"
(Also, I dislike the samurai mechanically. Most other fighter subclasses are better.)
Rollback Post to RevisionRollBack
Please check out my homebrew, I would appreciate feedback:
I haven’t played every class yet but from the ones I have played I did not like monk and wizard wasn’t as fun as I thought but that was just a one shot and was probably not an accurate representation of the class. I’m imagining Barbarian is not that fun either but haven’t tried them yet.
Rollback Post to RevisionRollBack
To post a comment, please login or register a new account.
Hello everyone!
I am interested in collecting information to see which classes are the D&D community’s favorite and least favorite to play. This is the poll for everyone’s least favorite to play, here is the link for everyone’s favorite if you’d like to check that one out as well: Everyone’s FAVORITE class to play in D&D.
Please feel free to place your vote (only 1 vote per user), as well as talk about why you dislike playing that class(optional).
Thank you for voting and looking forward to see what the results come up with!
I dislike paladins and clerics.
Cult of Sedge
Rangers are the best, and have always been the best
I love Homebrew
I hate paladins
Warrior Bovine
Ranger. I love the idea for RP, but playing a fighter with an archery fighting style and maybe nature, animal handling and survival skill proficiencies gets you most of the way there, but with far better attacks, perks, etc. as you level up.
I went with sorcerer. Why am I not playing a wizard?!
Paladin. I don't like the RP flavour of them with their oaths, the way the source of their power is explained is partly confusing and feels weak RP wise especially factoring Oathbreakers - the description of these basically means if declare an oath and live by it for a while you gain super divine powers (which is stated to come from the "oath" not actually from a deity - so why is it divine?!) and yet if you ever break your oath enough you lose those powers and gain super necromantic powers instead? Why? It just put across very weirdly. I don't like playing characters with religion, but Clerics can easily be RP'd without reliance on a "deity" per se but can be a strong connection to a powerful concept like how Druids gain theirs from nature rather than a deity. But these are concepts/things that are powerful throughout the world. Paladin Oaths aren't really like that, without a "deity" aspect their oath is just to themselves, like somebody murdered your family and you want revenge you make an oath to get it, train some swordfighting and bam, super-powers.. for some reason? Just comes across as naff to me.
The burst-nova style is boring to me. Multiclassing gets you more resources for more bursts to the point of being insanely broken. A Sorcadin made right even by 14th level can solo an adult dragon. This is broken.
They're kinda a mary-sue class. They can do more damage than anything in the game, they're decent healers, have good spells for buffs and debuffs, can boost all saves for the entire party, get all weapon/armour proficiencies, get super-mounts, and that's just the Base stuff, in addition to lots of subclass extras. Their only downside is players might burn through spell slots too quickly if liberal with smites - but there are ways around that and frankly even without smites they're powerful when played right. And, of course, get a lot of magic stuff that can boost their abilities. They're not as good at range as they cannot smite, but, again, there are ways around that (see "super mounts" which includes high-speed flying ones - why fight at range when you can outfly the enemies and stab them in the head?).
Just seems too much, and I hate that. I like that my wizard is vulnerable when magic is not effective, I like that barbarians can usually struggle with ranged fights - and don't get the ability to summon flying mounts to make that weakness disappear, things like this ground the characters into relatability and the need to work together. Paladins don't have this.
Plus, as a DM, paladins are frustrating because CRs don't factor the paladin's ability to resist almost anything and can release super-mega-****tons of radiant damage. So you can't really follow the DMG on making the encounters balanced without negatively affecting the other party members. Sorcadins are banned in games I run.
Click ✨ HERE ✨ For My Youtube Videos featuring Guides, Tips & Tricks for using D&D Beyond.
Need help with Homebrew? Check out ✨ this FAQ/Guide thread ✨ by IamSposta.
I don't like barbarians. They can take a lot of damage and hit things, that's pretty much it. They're a good class, just a class I'd never play because I need more options than take the dodge action or hit something or occasionally grapple somebody. They're a great class mechanically, but they just don't get a lot of options. Which is why either play a spellcaster or a battle-master fighter. I also like inquisitive rouge for the RP potential.
call me Anna or Kerns, (she/her), usually a DM, lgbtq+ friendly
I haven't played every class so I can't make an informed decision based on that - but I can categorically say I will never play a Bard. They're just not a class I believe I would ever mesh with.
Mega Yahtzee Thread:
Highest 41: brocker2001 (#11,285).
Yahtzee of 2's: Emmber (#36,161).
Lowest 9: JoeltheWalrus (#312), Emmber (#12,505) and Dertinus (#20,953).
Never played this as a Player but I designed a 4 Elements Monk as an adversary. Despite having powerful companions, the Monk was used as a figurative mop by the Hero's.
It would have been Ranger had I not been playing a tweaked version of the UA Beast Master Ranger.
Personally every Class to me is great, but I'd have to say Barbarian's JUST clinch it as, from a purely role-play standpoint, they can be pretty one note. I HIT THINGS WHERE'S THE MEAD??? It requires effort on the Player to inject them with a bit of creativity. Especially where the Beserker path is considered.
Untouched PHB Ranger a very close second because mechanically.... well that's a well beaten horse :P
#Open D&D
Have the Physical Books? Confused as to why you're not allowed to redeem them for free on D&D Beyond? Questions answered here at the Hardcover Books, D&D Beyond and You FAQ
Looking to add mouse-over triggered tooltips to such things like magic items, monsters or combat actions? Then dash over to the How to Add Tooltips thread.
Funny ... Sorcerers are my favorite class to play. I like dealing with the constraints of their spell lists and branching out in new directions ... possibly multi-classing a little bit.
My favorite PC currently is a V. Human 18 level Storm Sorcerer (17) / Tempest Cleric (1)
I also really enjoy playing fighters and paladins.
For some reason I find 5e rangers to be the most boring. Whereas I loved rangers in 2e.
I think having a Paladins power come from their Oath rather than a God, is more a 5e thing. Paladins in past editions made more sense .as the "champion" of such and such a God.
I like Paladins but also find the 5e version of them somewhat perplexing. Why not just play a Fighter or a Cleric if you want magic powers. Battlemaster Fighters and Forge or War domain Clerics make excellent front/midline characters.
Where exactly does the Paladin fit in, in 5e?
A caffeinated nerd who has played TTRPGs or a number of years and is very much a fantasy adventure geek.
I have paladins gain their power from being a champion of their god, but they have to maintain this power with their oath.
I chose Ranger, for the obvious reasons.
Please check out my homebrew, I would appreciate feedback:
Spells, Monsters, Subclasses, Races, Arcknight Class, Occultist Class, World, Enigmatic Esoterica forms
I love paladins, sorcerers and warlocks.........or multi classes of the three
I personally hate fighters as I dont like the idea of just swinging a sword all day long
“I will take responsibility for what I have done. [...] If must fall, I will rise each time a better man.” ― Brandon Sanderson, Oathbringer.
Poor fighters. Why does everyone play sword and board fighters in my games? They can be great archers, dual wielders, polearmers, maulers, and basically any type of fighter.
Please check out my homebrew, I would appreciate feedback:
Spells, Monsters, Subclasses, Races, Arcknight Class, Occultist Class, World, Enigmatic Esoterica forms
This.
The fighter is one of the most versatile classes in the game. You can make a fighter into just about anything you want them to be.
A caffeinated nerd who has played TTRPGs or a number of years and is very much a fantasy adventure geek.
I do not care at all for Druids. Part of that is me being allergic to everything that pollinates and having to deal with animals on a ranch. The outside deserves to die! It was also very narrow in its them. Protect the balance nature. You can do a lot of things within that, but mechanically I can get that with a lot of other classes. Those classes have more flavor and roleplaying opportunities that I like with them.
I also have allergies to everything outside, but I don't take it out on Druids or Rangers. (Even though I voted for rangers here, but that's for other reasons)
Also, if you don't like living things as a druid, just be a Spores druid.
Please check out my homebrew, I would appreciate feedback:
Spells, Monsters, Subclasses, Races, Arcknight Class, Occultist Class, World, Enigmatic Esoterica forms
I never play sword and board builds, but for some reason in dnd I have to play a class with magic or it feels so boring:/
I do really like the samurai subclass tho
“I will take responsibility for what I have done. [...] If must fall, I will rise each time a better man.” ― Brandon Sanderson, Oathbringer.
Eldritch Knight Fighters: "Am I a joke to you?"
(Also, I dislike the samurai mechanically. Most other fighter subclasses are better.)
Please check out my homebrew, I would appreciate feedback:
Spells, Monsters, Subclasses, Races, Arcknight Class, Occultist Class, World, Enigmatic Esoterica forms
I like basically all full casters. I don’t think there’s a BAD class though I think they’re all for different play styles.
I haven’t played every class yet but from the ones I have played I did not like monk and wizard wasn’t as fun as I thought but that was just a one shot and was probably not an accurate representation of the class. I’m imagining Barbarian is not that fun either but haven’t tried them yet.